FWIW, anyone who needs a fairly reasonable list of licenses will find a reasonable collection, with related discussion, here [fsf.org].

The OSI has a list of "approved" licenses here [opensource.org], but it's literally just a list (no explanation of the differences or analysis of their implications), and I get the impression the OSI is regretting approving so many of them, given most of them are incompatable with one another (some of them can be incompatable with themselves, depending on the precise circumstances!)

Your proposed license is not an Open Source or Free Software license at all:

Translation of messages and documentation in the English-language version to other languages is permitted. However, this permission-to-translate clause must be replaced in the translated version by a clause forbidding any further translation.

From the Debian Free Software Guidelines, as well as the Open Source Definition:

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Your license does not permit specific kinds of modified works from being distributed under the same terms.

I can understand the issue you are trying to solve: you don't want translations that don't come from the original, most likely because that would result in compounding errors due to mistranslation or limited translation. However, this is just one possible way that someone could make your program worse; they could also introduce bugs, security issues, standards-violations/extensions, or just features you don't like. Attempting to prevent people from making the program worse will also prevent people from exercising the right to create derivative works.

A much better solution is to require that modified works are clearly labelled as modified, and not represented as the original. Licenses such as the GPL and the zlib license do exactly that. This way, people can still modify the program for any purpose, but they won't make you look bad in the process, only themselves.

Another minor issue with your license is the fact that you require people to provide an offer for source code that is valid in perpetuity, without providing the alternative of just providing source code at the same time as providing the binary. This means that if someone ever provided a version of your program on their website, they would have to keep a copy of the source for that version indefinitely. This gets even worse if they distributed several versions.

These are just a few symptoms of what happens when you attempt to write your own license rather than using a well-established Free Software / Open Source license.

IANAL, but the problem with this is that once you say something is "Public Domain" you no longer have any say whatsoever in it. Those conditions would not need to be followed by anyone at all. Public Domain is Public Domain. Anyone can use it for any purpose without consulting you nor following any of your instructions on its use. I believe that includes the disclaimer.